What are the critics?

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

art historian studies the history of art, and the critic says and informs him about contemporary art.

This is where you learn about this?
_________________

Do you thanks-666.

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Peter

And what does the ideal audience?

Anyone who understands that art - a kind of revelation of God.

Added after 2 minutes

Сообщение от Cyril Syzranskiy

This is where you learn about this?
A few years of life of the artist of the twentieth century, for example, whether the history of art?
.

At Alexander Abramovich Kamensky, for example.

It was a good critic.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

Y Alexander Abramovich Kamensky, for example.

It was a good critic.

Where are you from Kamensky deducted such a distinction between critics and art historians?
Himself Alexander Abramovich, Doctor of Fine Arts and Honored Artist of Russia-positioned as an art critic and art historian.

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzranskiy

Himself Alexander Abramovich, Doctor of Fine Arts and Honored Artist of Russia-positioned as an art critic and art historian.

Collection of Articles "Opening day" - is not art history and critical studies.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

collection of his articles "Vernissage" - is not art history and critical studies.

How to say ... "Etude both studies ...

Kamensky, Alexander Abramovich (1922 - 1992).
Vernissage: a collection of scientific papers /A. Kamensky. -. - Moscow: Soviet Artist, 1974
Abstract: This book is made up of individual articles AA Kamensky, on a long line of the greatest masters of the Soviet and prerevolutionary Russian painting, sculpture and graphics. The purpose of AA Kamensky was to create a coherent book with strictly and consistently carried out the general principles of orderly system of aesthetic judgments, with a definite and sound logic guiding ideas. And this book really turned out - all without exception, this collection of articles characterized by the importance and relevance of the analyzed them in the theoretical and historical themes, clever and impressive, with great taste, your choice of artists and their works, as well as genuine and unconditional seriousness and the value associated with these artists range of ideas and thoughts. For artists, art historians and a wide range of readers.

[Peter]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

Anyone who understands that art - a kind of revelation of God.

There have been critics who are blamed say Cezanne, then there were others who said that Cezanne fellow, he opened a new view on zhivopis.Kto of them better understand the revelation of God? "That is such an opinion, criticism of fog, for In order to better express those or other group interests, depending on the conjuncture ."

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от Peter

There have been critics who say a curse Cezanne, then there were others who said that Cezanne fellow, he opened a new look at the painting.

Excellent.
This is a critical process alive.

Which one is more aware of the revelation of God?

Any art is a form of revelation of God, including the creation of the critic.
If the critic is not a woodpecker, it does not matter how he felt about Cezanne: positively or negatively.
His opinion is always interesting.

Here is an opinion, criticism of fog, in order to better express those or other group interests, depending on the conjuncture ."

This also happens, but I am not interested in such criticism.

Here, for example, milk, Jr., beautifully written in the best Russian journal of all time "Results".

[Vladimir]

Сообщение от Guriev, Igor

Milk Jr. wrote beautifully

Milk and listen very interesting, he is a brilliant storyteller and clearly highlight key points, although quick to slaughter.

[Pavel]

Сообщение от Peter

As an artist and a man who love art, I have often wondered what the critics want? "What they show in their works that are not visible to the eye, what can not be understood looking directly at the work of art? How their views contribute to the creativity of the artist, while others put a cross? "This is a subjective opinion or attempt an objective analysis of creativity?" I would like to hear the views of critics and art historians.

It seems to me that the task of critics to be able to analyze the processes occurring in a specific field of art and based on extensive knowledge of the work of many painters and artists for generations to conclude that the creation of a certain artist or group of artists. study of creative work of artists from different countries and time allows opreldelit degree of originality and lyrics. giftedness certain artist painter. Everything is understood in comparison, but to compare have to be very much to know and keep in mind.
Unfortunately our criticism and art history mired in commerce. and thus lost their outlook and can not compare. Many of knowledge are limited to superficial knowledge of the national art or narrowly professional knowledge given period. The overall disease-complementarity for the money, kills criticism.

[Peter]

Pavel, agrees with almost all your provisions, except that the "originality so gifted." It's more "modern" approach to the artist.

Added after 5 minutes

Сообщение от Pavel

Overall disease-complementarity for the money, kills criticism.

is interested in unbiased kritik.On can make an artist think, but "in a direction I go, whether in my work" vkusovschiny " and not to change it myself for the sake of fame and money. "Honest criticism is also rare.